Mackie Hr824 Mk1...whats your input?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Thanks Glen. I left that last part off b/c i've said it (as have so many others) so many times over the years around here that i figured it was obvious at this point.

It is a point that once you get it, it's obvious, but it seems to take a lot for some people to get it . Even now in this thread we still have people asking other people for advice on whether specific monitors are "any good". Such questions are about as meaningful as asking whether such and such is a good color for their shirt. Evenrybody is going to have a different opinion, none of them very relevant.

Now, it might be relevant to to report that speaker X seems to have a bump here, rolls off uqickly there, or speaker Y has crisper than mormal sibilants but muddy-sounding mids as compared to speaker z. But this would require two things: first knowing that the ears of that reporter aren't tricking them (a la the flat=hyped route, for example) and that they can discern such references, and second that the reporter leaves such descriptions technical and objective. "Speaker A" sounded great but speaker B didn't" applies only to that person and no one else, and is useless advice.

To mix on speakers, that are incapable of producing lows, is like blindly making judgements isn't it?

Yes it is. There's a difference, though, between speakers between being entirely incapable, and speakers being deficient.

Even the most ardent of NS10 supporters probably wouldn't suggest using them to mix, for example, a piece that relies heavily upon a syncopation of a couple of different 808-style bass drop rhythm tracks. They just don't go low enough. Even 824s are only going to give you so much of that picture. Ideally, one would want to be in a subwoofer-equipped CR to get the full picture.

That said, however, what NS10s will do is tell you when those 808s are messing with the rest of your mix and casing trouble on lesser repro systems. That is, the NS10s may be able to tell you that, "hey, I can't pronounce those drops very well, but listen to how bad they sound here. If you can get them so they don't mess me up, you might be OK." Alternately, the NS10s will also tell you if it can't repro those drops, whether the mix sounds lacking because it relies too much upon those drops to sound good.

This is what they mean when they say "if it sounds good on an NS10, it'll probably sound good everywhere". It doesn't necessarily mean that one can necessarily do an extended-spectrum mix on them and be able to trust the edges to be sweet, but rather that one can do a more conventional rock/pop mix and keep the edges from being sour. and that the main frequencies are at least OK.

And remember; you probably won't find many classical recordings mixed on NS10s, and those dance or hop recordings that do use bass drops and such were probably augmented by subwoofers regardless of their main monitors.

G.

 

[mrface2112]

CC--

I was previously mixing on m-audio sp5b's. they're the predecessor to the BX5's. they've got 5in cones and i think they excel for things like acoustic guitar and vocals type stuff--they absolutely rule the midrange. but for anything with ANY information below 150Hz, they came up really lacking.

let's see, differences i heard between them and the ASP8s. i pulled up a mix that i'd previously thought was "great" on the sp5b's and i *immediately* heard things on the asp8's that i'd never heard on the 5b's: reverb tails actually were discernable. i was able to hear (and feel!) the low end--and was therefore better able to compress the bass and kick drum, as well as eq them effectively. i always felt like i was guessing down there before.....and quite frankly, i was. compression (overall) and eq were far easier to use.

really, just about everything involved in the mixing process became faster and easier.

everything was clearer and cleaner sounding--i know it's cliche, but it was like a burka had been taken off my ears.

the most telling thing was that in 30 minutes i made tweaks to that mix that made it FAR superior to the "best" results i'd previously gotten with the maudios. it translated better and overall just plain sounded better.

it was again immediately apparent in the next song i tracked--everything went together much more smoothly and the end result seemed like it was an entire level above the previous one i'd done. the difference in really being able to hear what you're recording.

this is what i mean about them making your job faster and easier. it's nice not to have to struggle with that aspect--lord knows there are far more places where i struggle as it is.

however, i did have to learn how to work on them--it seemed that anything panned hard to the sides needed to be up a little higher than it should, and i had the typical "too much bass" in the mix due to an insufficient amount of bass trapping problem. i fixed the bass trapping problem and now my mixes aren't too low-weighted--and in doing so, the hard-panning "translation problem" also resolved itself somewhat.

now, what i hear in the studio is what i hear outside the studio, and that's the goal, right?


cheers,
wade

 

[CoolCat]

Were you ever able to a/b with the YSM1P's and a sub? I'm facing this problem right now. I have a WELL treated room but fight bass all over with these monitors. Accurate bass is just not what these monitors do well. I'm debating adding the YSS1 sub or taking the Yorkies back to get some Adam A7's. I'm just not sure the Adam's with a 6.5 woofer will be any better than the Yorks with sub. I've also heard some good things about the Yamaha HS80's, any experience with these?

exactly. a reasonable concern. a home testdrive can only answer that.

we can try to learn and use theory to help make a somewhat educated guess....but nothing like a good home session to A/B something.

I A/B'd the DYNBM5a my favorite GC speaker and after it, I kept my YSM1p's as it was subtle improvement, my needs and applications etc..

This 8" powerful amped Mackie, I think really shines over my YSM1p's on the dance techno low as you can go music, not even a contest there. But I don't write and record that kind of music anyway.

in short the YSM1p's have more clarity in the mids.(again probably more of a 6" versus 8" preference to whoever) so in a sense anyone adding the sub=low freq addition sounds very reasonable.
The Mackies can easily simulate a YSM1P/6" by cutting all the bass and revealing the mids via the switches. They sounded very very similar to the YSM1p's and the mid clarity was there with bass removed.

I understand some of SG's frustration on the Mackie Bashing..as people post "the MACKIES SUCK DONKEY DONGS!!"....but these posters didn't mention flipping a switch, moving them form the wall? Did they make this assumption after a 10 minute interrupted Guitar Center listening session?
The GC I frequent most often doesn't even have the switches in the same setting for both sides... not to mention the room is nothing like mine.

going sub...I have my old JBL sub...I could hook up.
To be honest I was hoping to run and get two powered 8" subs, but haven't had time. 2qty subs...
of course you know you need two sub woofers to set your YSM1P's on?
if you want to simulate a poor mans Barefoot MicroMain27..
oh yeah...

I have a few bites on these Mackies at $700 on craigslist, but if that don't come through...it'll be really hard to return them at $400.
They've been on playing music for 2 days & nights straight nearly...not one snap crackle or pop....very very nice. Not much time for mixing a session or anything serious. Made in Norway speakers....haha, I laugh whenever I read the bone heads dissing the China made on these, what a mental pile of shit.

The Adams.. I don't know. A 6" for a 6" may be a subtle change. The tweeter is pretty different. I'd like to read a shootout of the Samson Rubicons versus the Adam 7. They've definately got a "mania" going..like Mackies did in the first few years. I guess I don't bite on those worms, the marketing worms, the more the hype the more skeptical I get.

proofs in the pudding.

 

[CoolCat]

CC--
i always felt like i was guessing down there before.....and quite frankly, i was.

everything was clearer and cleaner sounding--i know it's cliche, but it was like a burka had been taken off my ears.

the most telling thing was that in 30 minutes i made tweaks to that mix that made it FAR superior to the "best" results i'd previously gotten with the maudios. it translated better and overall just plain sounded better.

guessing...crazy. thats just it, you get beautiful sounding monitors and yet no one has those at home.....they have earbuds and pc speakers....
but to mix on small speakers, there's a lot of guessing

your kind of upgrade is very encouraging as in meaning of "upgrade"....no wonder your so happy with the ASP8's. Its a lot of cashola to be spending for some of us so there's some apprehension and anxiety..

really, if I won the lottery, I'd get some Barefoots..that'd be the first thing I'd buy. damn gearlust..

 

[mamm7215]

Yeah, I think I'm going to try the sub with the Yorkies first. I also realized I had my HF tuned the wrong way, set to bright room (-2db), when with all the treatment in here it should be set to dampened room (+2db) on the high end. That'll take care of the high end errors I've been having. I can get the sub tomorrow and test then to see. I've got to remaster my CD in a hurry as I'm getting a bit of airplay now and places are requesting copies for giveaways, etc and the CD now in my opinion is lacking.

 

[CoolCat]

This is what they mean when they say "if it sounds good on an NS10, it'll probably sound good everywhere".

And remember; you probably won't find many classical recordings mixed on NS10s, and those dance or hop recordings that do use bass drops and such were probably augmented by subwoofers regardless of their main monitors.

G.

I was thinking of that infamous line this morning.

in reverse, we can have outstanding mixes on great expensive monitors and it's ass on the average playback system...or "messing with the mix" as you put it.

IMO, Auratones were for the cardboard speaker mono and single speaker in the metal car dash end user...NS10's for the old HiFi enduser...and car tape decks....

Mackies probably came in as subs and the low end user was obtaining low freq equipment.

but anyway, damn.....1pm some dewd thinking about buying the Mackies at $700. and I wanted to do some more stuff with them...mixing, subs etc..

but $700 that'll buy me a couple subwoofers..just form the profit!

 

[CoolCat]

let's see, differences i heard between them and the ASP8s. i pulled up a mix that i'd previously thought was "great" on the sp5b's and i *immediately* heard things on the asp8's that i'd never heard on the 5b's: reverb tails actually were discernable. i was able to hear (and feel!) the low end--and was therefore better able to compress the bass and kick drum, as well as eq them effectively. i always felt like i was guessing down there before.....and quite frankly, i was. compression (overall) and eq were far easier to use.

cheers,
wade

interesting on the compressing bass and kick comment....less guessing.

in hindisght it does seem somewhat "insane" making adjustments for the low end when one can't really hear it.

you got a steal on your ASP8's...they're generally 4times the cost if the BX5s...I recall GC coming down on the DYNBM5a without trying to hard...but it wasn't $600 pair? damn.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Iin reverse, we can have outstanding mixes on great expensive monitors and it's ass on the average playback system...or "messing with the mix" as you put it.

I think this is bordering on the danger of the kind of oversimplification that everybody seems to desire in this racket, but only leads to myth.

Yes, it is possible to make a great mix on an extended range monitoring system that sounds like ass on a limited playback system, but if that happens, it's not because of the monitoring system, it's because of a lack of understanding or translation on the part of the engineer.

While it may be somewhat true (though not as rock-solid 100% true as it may sound) that if something sounds good on an NS10 that'll sound good everywhere, that doesn't mean that it couldn't potentially sound *better* if mixed on an exteneded range monitor.

To repeat and ampify, you probably won't find many Telarc classical recordings or Windham Hill smooth jazz recordings or 5.1 movie soudtracks that have been mixed on NS10s or Auratones. In cases where extended range is a key component of the production and/or arrangement, limited-range mix monitoring just won't usually cut it.

And, just because a rock mix can sound good done on an Auratone or NS10 doesn't mean that it can only sound lousy if mixed on the opposite kind of monitor. The equation is not transitive like that. It's two different ways of skinning a cat, requiring two different types of ear and two different translations.

Let's remember a key component of speakers like the NS10s and Auratones as well; their history. Especially true with the NS10s, a big part of their fame and popularity was/is their ubiquity and their use as a common denominator. A main attraction to them back in 1980 or so when they were first gaining their current notariety was they were an inexpensive way for the Big House studios (indeed all studios), who were used to custom soffet mid field arrays, to get a mixing monitor in there that could be used as a common denominator for visiting engineers.

Being nearfields, and being (at the time) one of the few, if not only, nearfields marketed to the professional community, every studio could equip itself with a set of mixing monitors whose sound engineers everywhere would be familiar with and whose sound would not drastically differ from control room to control room. There were even (and still are) some engineers who carry their own set of monitors with them wherever they go for this very reason.

Auratones and NS10s became de facto standards not so much because of their quality, though they could get the job done just fine for most Billboard stuff, but rather because they were the choice for standardization itself. Sure, if it sounded good on an NS10 it sounded good elsewhere. But if you needed great sound, if you needed attention to detail, if you needed to worry about how it sounded to audiophiles or dance clubs, and not just to the top 40 listener, chances are you needed more and better than an NS10.

G.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I think any good engineer can mix on any speakers and get a passable mix as long as he plays some reference music that he knows really well thru them first to 'calibrate' his ears to the monitor.
So to me it's more a matter of the skills of the engineer.
And I've been in an awful lot of studios and though it is true that most of them had NS-10s set up, I've never seen anyone really mixing on them. They mix on the good stuff and use the NS10s just as a check to see what it'll sound like on crappy speakers.
I've had quite a few engineers say that the NS10s sounded like total crap which is the specific thing they want them for.
But all the ones I've seen just use them for a check .... rather like running to your car to see how it sounds. But I've never seen anyone actually doing any real mixing on them.

 

[mixmkr]

But I've never seen anyone actually doing any real mixing on them.

That's because you can't tell if there is a bass track muted or not!

 

[CoolCat]

the choice for standardization itself. Sure, if it sounded good on an NS10 it sounded good elsewhere.
G.

I don't agree on this NS10 theory, wherever it came from.

I think if its mixed with the bass cutout... it can show up in higher end speakers and therefore doesn't sound good "anywhere else"...maybe in average consumer stuff, but from an audiophile standpoint one might better say "these mixes sound like they were mixed on NS10's".

how the old masters mixed in "mid freq land" and cut the bass to prevent the needle from jumping..etc.. or the like is interesting. The 1920's grammaphone sound, the Beatles early recordings are very mid-rangy. (i'll get flamed for that comment)..

I don't personally play the dance midi sonically perfect techno stuff, but man does it bring out the differences in speakers.

well, just called looks like this dewd is buying my Mackies for $700..he already has 3 sets. oh well...... no complaining.

 

[CoolCat]

well, I have $700, he has the Mackies. He didn''t even care if they were China or US.
he mentioned he has some already and some Blue Sky Ones for the sub...but prefers the Mackies HR824 because he knows them.
He actually lives off this recording stuff doing corporate and toys etc. He did the voice for the Bass Fish on the PLaque thing...

anyway, guess I'll have to go look into some subwoofers.

 

[mamm7215]

Do you really need 2 subs??? I just talked myself into 1...

 

[CoolCat]

I'm not one to ask...
but you can read up on Blue Skys and Barefoot and theres sub-low end info., Bob Hodas article that was in Mix magazine called To Sub or Not To Sub which I thought was great...he mentioned having 2qty subs left and right


heres that article To Woof or Not to Woof...
http://bobhodas.com/pub3.html

 

[mamm7215]

Well I went and bought a sub today. Yorkville YSSM-1 to compliment my YSM1P's. All I can say is
WHY DID I WAIT SO LONG TO DO THIS???????
My room is well treated. I've used room eq wizard and treated some more. I couldn't get a good mix bass-wise for the life of me. The bass response on the YSM1P's is unusable now in my opinion. I believe the sub has saved my CD. I needed to remaster it and it took hours and 5-15 remixes guessing to get it right. I do 1-3 mixes now to get everything balanced. Anything beyond that is just remixing to get another flavor, not make it listenable. I'm literally stunned by this. The Yorkvilles are well respected for the price-range so I'm sure the monitors are fine. The mids/high mids/highs are quite accurate. What I hear in the studio is what I end up hearing on all my other test systems. Bass is night and day difference now.

YMMV but I would never go back to mixing/mastering without a sub now unless I had some really $$$$ monitors but the Yorkies need a sub.

 

[CoolCat]

damn!! the YSS1...thats too cool.

the footswitch stereo bypass...I love that idea/option.
it was my first choice because of that. a bit pricey at $400

in my last smaller HR room the 6" speakers got to approx. 150hz and start falling.

the sub fills it in, but I noticed to make the mic and spl stuff happy the sub was hardly obvious, invisible almost.

i think with the foot switch it would make it like a Tracking Full range to a quick no-bass "NS10 no bass hifi 4" speaker type" check...

I'd have to play around but I'm thinking a higher end cutoff than the anechoic chamber specs suggest?


here's an old plot I did from a smaller room with the YSM1p....its not high resolution, but hey....it was a free trial RTA I did myself. No Bob Hodas here..

just add a note- I had approx 10 703 panels from Ethans DIY stuff too..

 

[mamm7215]

Nice graph after the sub was put in. I have yet to do that here to see what the end result is as far as room response goes, likely this weekend. The footswitch is a seriously cool feature. It's really almost ridiculous the difference it makes in my studio.
Cheers!

 

[CoolCat]

onto the sub-ject

here's some good reading while you listen to your sub...
its an interesting sub-ject...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep04/articles/realtraps.htm

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov04/articles/qa1104-1.htm?print=yes

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul02/articles/subwoofers.asp

 

[mamm7215]

Way ahead of you...I have 4 8'tall 4" thick bass traps in the main corners. I have a 5'x4'x4" wall panel trap on each of the long walls as well. Above them I have a 2'x4'x4" wall/ceiling trap and a 5'x4'x6" ceiling cloud above my mix position. Believe me, it's the monitors...